International Non-Governmental Organization | Special consultative status with UN ECOSOC
Associate member with UN DPI | Institutional member of International Council of Museums (ICOM)
Member of pan-European Federation for Cultural Heritage EUROPA NOSTRA | Associate member with INTO

Press-Conference at Nicholas Roerich Museum of ICR held on 9 March

On March 9, 2017, in the Museum named after Nicholas Roerich of the ICR held a press conference. The participants of the press conference were provided with the facts, documents and the most complete information on the conduct of the power operation on the territory of the ICR with the participation of representatives of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, the State Museum of Oriental Art and Nicholas Roerich Museum (New York).

The press conference included the speeches of following reporters:

1. Alexander V. Stetsenko – vice-president of the ICR.

2. Anatoly E. Karpov – the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the ICR, chess grandmaster, world chess champion.

3. Natalia N. Cherkashina – acting Director General of the Museum named after Nicholas Roerich.

4. Pavel M. Zhuravikhin – first Deputy Director General of the Museum named after Nicholas Roerich.

5. Tatiana A. Ivanova – secretary of the Board of the ICR.

The text format of the press conference:

Alexander V. Stetsenko –vice-president of the
International Centre of the Roerichs.

Dear colleagues and journalists. On behalf of the administration of the
International Centre of the Roerichs, Non-governmental Museum named after
Nicholas Roerich and all staff of the Centre I would like to welcome you to our
Museum. We are starting the press conference. Taking into account that that
there is currently no spokesman at the ICR, my colleagues and I, Vice President
of the International Centre of the Roerichs Alexander Stetsenko, Acting
Director General of the Museum Natalia Cherkashina, First Deputy Director
General of the Museum Pavel Juravikhin, member of the Board of the
International Centre of the Roerichs Tatiana Ivanova. I will not introduce
those who promised to come until they are here.

Therefore, what happened yesterday and the day before yesterday. In our
opinion, on 7 March from 9.40 a.m. to 5.00 a.m. on 8 March there was an armed
seizure of the Lopoukhins’ estate and the Museum named after Nicholas Roerich
undertaken by investigating authorities and representatives of the Ministry of
Culture on the pretext of investigatory actions related to the criminal case of
“Master Bank”. Taking into account all the circumstances and how it all was
done, I am going to tell about it, while my colleagues will add some details. I
believe that I have every right to say what I have just said: the Museum
situated in the center of the capital, not far from Kremlin, was seized. This
has dealt a serious blow to the image of our Motherland and to culture on the
whole. One author has recently published an article in his blog entitled “The 7th
March is a dark day for the Russian culture”.

Certainly, there was enough time to analyze everything after all that
happened. It turns out to be an interesting situation. During three years after
new officials were appointed to the Ministry of Culture, there have already
been some attempts (which have been practically realized) to institute criminal
proceedings against our organization. One of them was in 2014, when criminal
proceedings were instituted for ostensibly illegal restoration of the
Lopoukhins’ estate and for building a wall on the ground. I will not go into
details but I will answer the questions if there are some. At that time
investigators arrived in order to check and seize documents. That is how it
works: they informed us, arrived and we met them. They let us familiarize with
the search warrant and we voluntarily provided documents, which the
investigators were interested in, despite the fact that they also came with
OMON (Special Purpose Mobility Unit).

We provided all documents willingly. They took a look, made copies of
some documents and left. By the way, this criminal case has not been dismissed
yet. However, actions of 7 March not only violate the legislation but they are
contrary some ordinary notions as well. A member of our Museum called me in the
morning around 7.30 a.m. and said “an investigator, representative of the
Investigative Committee, arrived, served a summons, according to which I was
supposed to come to the Museum by 9 a.m. There was an address: 3/5 Maly
Znamensky. I saw your name in one of the summons. It seems that they might
visit you soon”. Well, I was waiting but nobody came. It was 9 a.m. and still
none came. I went by car in order to arrive as soon as possible. At 9.30 a.m. I
left for the International Centre of the Roerichs.

And then I got a call “Mr. Stetsenko, armed special armed units (OMON)
wearing masks has broken in, there are about 60 people, representatives of the
Ministry of Culture among them together with Adviser to the Minister of Culture
Kirill Rybak, Deputy Director of the State Museum of Oriental Art Tigran
Mkrtychev and other staff”. I asked to pass the phone to the senior, “let them
wait for me”.

Near the Centre I got stuck in a traffic jam, within 15 or 20-minute
drive from the Belorussian station. Some time later Natalia Cherkashina called
me “they won’t listen to anyone; they are going to break the doors”. Once again
I asked to wait for me “I am the Vice President of the International Centre of
the Roerichs and, according to articles of incorporation and laws of the
Russian Federation, I am responsible for the organization”. They ought to have
waited for me at least for 10-15 minutes. Nothing awful would happen. However,
they did not do it and now it is obvious why they acted this way.

Therefore, according to the records of our guard service, at 9.40 a.m.
about 60 people (one can count more precisely as nobody tried to count at
first) entered in seven directions. There were seven groups; among them were
investigators from the Investigative Committee, members of Interior Ministry's
Economic-Crimes Department, witness to the search and representatives of the
Ministry of Culture. At least 5-6 people in each group, and there were also
additional means like OMON. They did not wait. Our Museum, as any Moscow
museum, opens at 11 a.m., while the working day of members of the ICR starts at
10 a.m. Those members, who arrived at ICR by that time, entered into the
building but were locked there: nobody was let in or out.

(Mr. Karpov enters; applause in the hall)

Dear colleagues, I would like to introduce Anatoly Karpov, Chairman of the
Board of Trustees of our Museum, who is our old friend, who was also at the
origins of the setting up the Non-governmental Museum, he communicated with
Svetoslav Roerich many times and knows his wishes and testaments. We thank him
a lot for coming to our press conference despite being very busy. Shall we give
you the floor, or are we short of time? Ok, I will tell, thank you, Mr. Karpov.

Well, I have to repeat some things for Mr. Karpov. At 9.40 a.m.
representatives of the Investigative Committee, members of Interior Ministry's
Economic Crimes Department, representatives of the Ministry of Culture and
armed OMON wearing masks entered Museum territory pushing away the guards; they
refused to wait for me as the Vice President. They started breaking the door of
the Museum using a sledgehammer.

But it is a Museum where in each hall (there are eleven of them) there
are cultural values, national heritage of Russia. During investigation museum
staff is obliged to be presented. You understand that they did not let in
either deputy Director of the Museum or the curators. They left only one
representative of ICR guard service, who was sitting in the corner, while they
were ruling the tune. Do you understand? It was outrageous! They did not
present any documents and did not tell anyone about the rights they had. I have
already said that I called attorney of the International Centre of the Roerichs
and other attorneys were on the way, they just could wait a little. Nobody
would wait.

When I arrived at the Centre, around 10.20 a.m., they did not want to let
me in. They let me in only when they realized that I was the Vice President. An
investigator came up to me. And the first thing I saw was an OMON member with
an axe, walking from the side of the 5th building. They had been
breaking and hacking the locks of our storage facility.

At first, they were talking to me in a very impudent manner. I
introduced myself and said that our attorney would come soon. They even started
to treat me with unwanted familiarity, while asking to read the search warrant.
I asked them to wait for some time, “our attorney is coming and then we are
going to talk”. After our attorney Anna Razumovskaya arrived, she started
familiarizing with the documents, they led us to one of the wing rooms, where
there is no chairs and a very small table. I said “Why are you leading us
there? I have my own office here, we have Vorontsov hall, and there is enough
room for everybody, we will have opportunity to see everything”. They refused.
They intentionally did not let us enter the Museum.

While Anna Razumovskaya was reading the search warrant, we expressed all
our comments and indignation because of such rude attitude towards the staff of
the Centre, where 70-80% are women. And all this happens on the eve of 8th
March!

Only about 3 hours later they let us enter the Museum. I saw that there
was no curators in any museum hall. I said “let the curators enter, it is
necessary to bring them here, why are you bossing here?” They said “we have the
right to”. The indignation had no borders. They invited Natalia Cherkashina,
talked to her and did not let her stay. Only one museum guard, who was not
competent, was allowed to stay. Especially without any support from our
attorney. We were brought from the Museum to the administrative building, where
the search was in process. “Mr. Stetsenko, follow us, we are going to examine
your offices”. They made us leave the halls and made the representative of the
guard service sign search and seizure record. It is obvious, that he did not
know what was necessary to write down, he did not know that it was necessary to
point out all violations, all remarks, isn’t it? Moreover, when our attorney
asked to wait, she was simply debarred.

I believe that colleagues will add something. I did not know, what the
investigators are looking for. It turned out that there were seven groups and
for each group they chose a representative of our organization, who would be
present during the search of certain room. We were in the wing, when they asked
me “who will be the representative? It is necessary to conduct a search in all
rooms”. I said “Wait, it is accounts department, we need its representative,
and we need chief accountant, as documents are kept here”. They said no. They
did not let anyone in. I had to appoint as representatives during the search
the staff blocked on the stairs.

It lasted until lunchtime. It is necessary to repeat that there were no
representatives of our organization in the Museum. About 15 members of the
Investigative Committee and Interior Ministry's Economic Crimes Department
stayed in this hall. All entrances were guarded by OMON. They took away my
phone several times and did not let me either make or receive phone calls. They
told me not to go out and to remain there as they restricted movement.
Fortunately, I managed to go out and to give a short interview, as journalists
had already been near the fence and nobody was allowed to enter.

At the same time Advisor of the Minister of Culture Konstantin Rybak and
Mr. Mkrtychev were bossing here. For some reason they were introduced to us as
experts. And it is even more interesting that one expert Dmitry Popov was
invited from the New York Roerich Museum. They were walking through the halls
pointing at paintings: “Well, we are taking this painting”. And everything had
already been packed. I asked how they had packed paintings without us and how
we could know, which values had been removed. They answered that they had
pinned marks. You know, it was an endless indignation.

They said “Mr. Stetsenko, we confine you”. They accused me of rudeness
etc. Even now I am filled with emotions of the arbitrariness, which took place
here. I will not go into details about what was going on in other offices. The
investigators conducting the search in the administrative part of the buildings
were calm and polite. Our attorney and I opened the safes and showed the
documents; they familiarized with all of them, asked to copy some documents and
we did it. In other words, there was adequate communication.

All this took place before 3 p.m. Then investigator Ms. Zaytseva, who
guided the process, if I am not mistaking, asked me to come up. She is criminal
investigator on the “Master Bank” case. She said “Mr. Stetsenko, why are you…”,
while I saw that for some reason she took original documents on donation of
Nicholas Roerich’s paintings to the International Centre of the Roerichs dated
2002 etc. She asked me why we had not presented these documents during
investigatory actions on “Master Bank“ criminal case (it was in 2014). I said
that if I was not mistaking, it was possible to find those documents; at that
time they had presented us a search warrant where it had been written that the
search was conducted on the basis of the certain criminal case within certain
time-frames, 2011-2013 and we presented all the documents to the investigator,
while that day she was showing us documents dated 2002, 2003.

I was told that we bought these paintings illegally, spending stolen
funds. I answered “Has anyone proved that those funds had been stolen? The
investigation is ongoing“. She repeated that everything was bought for stolen
funds. I wondered whether there was a court judgement. The documents were dated
2002, 2003, 2005, while the license of “Master bank“ was revoked in 2013. I
know that, according to the investigators, a loan provided to someone in order
to buy the paintings has not been repaid.

The majority of paintings was bought in the New York Museum, who was
selling them, and some of the paintings (nine paintings by Svetoslav Roerich)
Boris Bulochnik donated to the Museum in October. We presented all contracts
and documents, as in 2014 the investigation was interested only in these nine
paintings. They said “taking into account the situation, when we cannot verify,
criminal investigation ongoing, we arrest the paintings and leave them in the
Museum for storage“. We were warned about nine paintings. And when I was
informed about the search and seizure, I thought that they were going to seize
these nine paintings. Well, I thought that the investigators had the right to
do it, one never knows what was the material evidence. But when I saw that
other paintings were seized as well, oh, sure…

Thus, I explained it to Ms. Zaytseva but she said that they were going
to seize other paintings as well. Our attorney came up and asked to reread the
search and seizure warrant. There were mentioned the criminal case and
time-frames, i.e. the time period, 2011 and, if I am not mistaking, 2013. I am
telling from memory.

Mr. Juravikhin: 2010.

Alexander V. Stetsenko.

2010? Well, it means the period from 2010 to 2013. We could somehow
imagine that the investigators were interested in this very periods and
donations of Mr. Bulochnik. However, you are trying to seize other paintings as
well. The investigator answered “yes, I think that they are related to it. They
were acquired illegally“. On what grounds?

Boris Bulochnik case is a separate topic; I will mention it if there are
questions. In addition, I would like to make it clear. Relations of ICR and “Master
Bank“ consisted only in one type of relations: our organizations had its
official bank accounts there, which also disappeared after the license of the
bank was revoked. Prosecutor’s Office was interested in our relations, while
there was no relations with “Master Bank“.

Our attorney and the lawyer were the witnesses, and we, from my point of
view, guided all this arbitrariness. We expressed our displeasure. We waited.
And the second round of seizure lasted until 5 a.m. Here I personally saw Mr.
Mkrtychev and Mr. Rybak bossing, while the Museum staff was bringing the items
in and out, packing them… “So, unhook this one and this… Such a pity! They do
not have the original painting by Nicholas Roerich here, we do not need this“ –
these are the words of Deputy Director of SMOA Mr. Mkrtychev. I said “Well,
good fellows, of course you do not need it“.

I repeat once again: in my opinion, it was initiated by the Ministry of
Culture only, under the cover of criminal investigation on “Master Bank“ case.
The staff was blocked until 5 a.m. Nobody was interested whether the staff was
fed, whether they felt well; perhaps they spent the night on the chairs. It was
8 March, you know what I mean. Nevertheless, a car with pizza, sandwiches and
water arrived for the investigators. There is no doubt that it is outrageous.

I would like to sum up. Why did it happen? You know, it is not a secret;
there is a lot of information on our websites. The International Centre of the
Roerich’s and its Non-governmental Museum have been carrying out broad cultural
activity aimed at promotion of the Roerichs“ cultural heritage for more than 25
years. Our leader Lyudmila Shaposhnikova, who was Svetoslav Roerich’s trusted
person, Director General of the Museum, who practically created all this
beauty, renovated the estate, was awarded by the State several times for her
selfless activity. She was awarded twice under Presidential decree, first, with
the Order of Friendship and in 2011 with the Order of Service to the Fatherland
IV Class.

ICR was given awards for scientific restoration of this monument, where
you are now, several times. There are documents showing the state of the
monument at the time of its transfer to us. It was completely ruined.

We used to have normal business relations with all Ministers of Culture.
There were some disagreements on certain questions but we solved the problems
in civilized manner as it is generally accepted. And there has never been such
arbitrariness similar to that one started with the appointment of the Minister
of Culture Vladimir Medinsky and the First Deputy Minister Mr. Aristarkhov.
Since their appointment in 2013 the arbitrariness, which is still going on, has
started. I will not go into details, I will just remind of some facts and
compare some of them; we have already mentioned a lot. There is no legal basis
for seizure of the Roerichs’ heritage; for example, one can file an action in
replevin.

If the Ministry of Culture thinks that we are illegally holding the
property. However, nobody has ever filed such action. How can they file an
action? How will the Ministry of Culture prove its rights to inherit the
property, which was donated us by its owner, Svetoslav Roerich? There is no way
to do it. In 2015 it tried to make the General Prosecutor’s Office and the
Prosecutor’s Office of Khamovniky seize the heritage addressing to the court.
However, they did not do it, as the members of the Prosecutor’s Office were
clever enough not to do it. What did the Ministry of Culture do then? It
started discrediting activity of our organization.

While in 2015 there were only five unscheduled inspections and two court
proceedings, in 2016 there were 17 unscheduled inspections and 13 court
proceedings. Can you find another similar arbitrariness in Russia? I believe
that there is even no commercial organization that would be treated like that.

Our Prime Minister has repeated many times “Stop nightmarizing business!”
And our organization is a non-governmental one. One cannot imagine how many
letters we sent to the Prime Minister. Not only I but also the President of our
organization Yuri Temirkanov (this outstanding person who did not fear to
become our President while the organization is facing its hardest times should
be mentioned separately) wrote the letters but this resulted in nothing.
Moreover, the Ministry of Culture tried to make everyone think that we were an
extremist organization.

All inspections were initiated by governmental telegrams and letters, I
have a large number of them and I can even show them, all of them are signed by
the First Deputy Minister of Culture Mr. Aristarkhov. Under the request of the
Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Justice carried out an inspection in order
to check whether we were an extremist organization. There was a corresponding
document, we were not recognized as an extremist organization but there were
some technical mistakes, which we have already corrected. Then the Ministry of
Culture started accusing us of extremism addressing complaints and calumny to
the Prosecutor’s Office. They initiated inspections carried out by different
investigating authorities including the General Prosecutor’s Office and MIA.
Mr. Aristarkhov even sent a telegram to the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs
asking to carry out an inspection of ICR, as, according to Mr. Aristarkhov,
there were some Ukrainian illegal aliens.

Moreover, Mr. Aristarkhov sent telegrams to Federal Service for
Environmental, Technological, and Nuclear Supervision, as, according to him,
there ostensibly were explosible containers within ICR territory, which were
dangerous for the monument. There was an inspection, everything was checked,
and we have one of the best fire-extinguishing systems among Moscow museums.
Mr. Aristarkhov also addressed letters to the Deputy Minister of Internal
Affairs Mr. Vanichkin, asking to inspect ICR and its Director Lyudmila
Shaposhnikova for illegal activities. The letter contained calumny on ICR and
its Director Lyudmila Shaposhnikova, I will tell in my own words, that ICR was
training rebels ready to gather on the Red Square with Molotov cocktails. Can
you imagine it? It looks fantastic.

Dear media, we have been facing this awful situation for 4 years
already. Endless inspections, court proceedings since the death of Lyudmila
Shaposhnikova and Evgeni Primakov, who was our old friend and member of our
Board of Trustees. Of course, there have already been some actions against us
but none has ever tried to accuse the organization in such mean and impudent
manner, trying to destroy it.

What is the Minister of Culture doing? He addressed Sergei Sobyanin
asking to transfer the Lopoukhins’ estate into ownership of the Russian
Federation, ostensibly aiming to fulfill Svetoslav Roerich’s will but
establishing a State museum here in order to collect all Roerichs’ paintings. I
do not know why but the document is signed by Mr. Sobyanin. In 2015, several
days after the application of the Minister of Culture, all buildings of the
Lopoukhins’ estate were transferred to the ownership of Federal Agency for
State Property Management. This very Agency together with the State Museum of
Oriental Art had been trying to evict our organization from the buildings by
means of court proceedings for four years before, which resulted in nothing.

The Federal Agency for State Property Management, under the application
of Mr. Aristarkhov, who asked to transfer the Lopoukhins’ estate to operational
management of the State Museum of Oriental Art, fulfilled his request despite
the fact that the estate was transferred being encumbered with gratuitous use
by the International Centre of the Roerichs. We gained this right, as we
renovated the estate without any governmental financing. As soon as the State
Museum of Oriental Art got the estate, it initiated eviction of ICR from it.
Inspections are constantly being initiated, there are also documents describing
ostensibly awful condition of the estate, where you are now. Moreover, facts
are being falsified, I am ready to prove it being liable to the laws of the
Russian Federation, if someone tries to accuse me of calumny.

In 2015 Department of Cultural Heritage of Moscow conducted a planned
inspection and did not find any violations. Six months later under the request
of Mr. Aristarkhov, who said that the estate was in awful condition, Department
of Cultural Heritage of Moscow initiated a new inspection, during which the
same experts, who conducted the previous inspection, revealed a large number of
violations, some of which were simply falsified. Of course, there were some
technical defects but on the whole almost all of them are of documentary
character i.e. they are related to the documents but not to the condition of
the estate. Nevertheless, there were administrative proceedings initiated and
the court did not pay any attention to our documents, while the State Museum of
Oriental Art referred to it as the ground for our eviction from the Lopoukhins’
estate.

Moreover, several months later the Ministry of Culture initiated an
inspection conducted by Federal Agency for State Property Management. The
inspection took two months, the same violations were detected but in addition
it was claimed that 17 commercial organizations were ostensibly registered to
the address of the estate. And it is a ground for dissolution of contract for
gratuitous use. The state Museum of Oriental Art tried to make use of it
immediately.

When we learned it, we filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office
and the tax office requesting for an investigation. We seized the court and
said that the inspections were initiated by interested parties, who wanted to
evict us; we asked the court to initiate an independent verification. The court
denied our request. At the court we presented the opinion of one of the most
well-known honored architects and restorers of the highest qualification. I
will not reveal his surname because as soon as the State Museum of Oriental Art
learned that we presented his opinion to the court, SMOA raised persecutions on
this expert.

You know, one can mention many facts. There is no doubt that I will be
summoned for questioning after this inspection and seizure. It is also possible
that they will be trying to initiate criminal cases against the administration
of our organization in order to isolate ICR leadership from the activity of our
organization and to appoint external administration.

Tax inspection initiated under the request of Mr. Aristarkhov was
conducted from April to December 2016 and it was suspended, as far as I
remember, four or five times. The inspection did not find any financial
violations, however, they said that Mr. Stetsenko (it’s me) was managing
financial flows of the organization. They referred to this so-called fact as to
the ground for inspection. I said to the taxmen “Please, find those financial
flows. The average monthly wage of our staff is 13 000 rubles. Still,
people do work”.

Finally, in December we were accused of nonpayment of taxes amounting to
52 million of rubles. Why? The grounds consisted in exhibiting of paintings in
our Museum. The Ministry of Culture claims that we had not registered a part of
collection with non-governmental part of the Museum Fund. What a lie! Among the
first museums, in 2004 we registered the entire heritage we had at that time
with the non-governmental part of Museum Fund. We were almost the first museum
among the State ones who did it. If I am not mistaking, our Certificate of
registration with the non-governmental part of Museum Fund is at number 15.

Yes, we did not have time to register the latest additions, it is a
painstaking work, and they made us a remark. We started preparations for
registration but in 2016 the Ministry of Culture did not accept our
applications for registration. It is obvious: it was trying to give time to the
tax office, so that it would have grounds for accusing us of nonpayment of
taxes amounting to 52 million rubles. What does it lead to? It leads to
collapse and bankruptcy of our organization.

And now the heritage is being forcibly seized with involvement of
enforcement structures. Emotions are running high. It was hard to watch how
paintings were violently unhooked, packed and sent to the State Museum of
Oriental Art. All was done on request. One carrying a painting told me that he
did not like Roerich at all. Well, if you do not like Roerich, why do you take
his paintings?

The Ministry of Culture ran a campaign in 2016 under the pretext that
the Lopoukhins’ estate had been transferred to the State Museum of Oriental Art
in order to establish there a State Museum. There was a meeting of the
collegium of the Ministry of Culture organized in February 2016, during which
they tried to adopt a decision considering establishment of a State Museum
here, in this very building, where our non-governmental Museum has been working
for 25 years already.

We were not invited to the collegium, and they did not let us say a
word. You see, the eviction is based only on these two decisions. Courts reject
and do not recognize our claim aimed to cancel the decision of the collegium of
the Ministry of Culture. We were told that our interests were not violated. How
could that be? There is an obvious violation, as work of all our staff as well
as work of a large number of Russian and foreign non-governmental
organizations, which took part in creation of the Museum, is not recognized.

In fact, the Museum is Russian public good and it was established on
request of Svetoslav Roerich. The government accepted his decision, fulfilled
Svetoslav Roerich’s requirement considering establishment of the non-governmental
Museum and transfer of the estate for the purposes of the non-governmental
Museum. Everything is violated now by the Ministry of Culture. We are severely
wounded; it is a serious blow to our organization. Nevertheless, you see, the
Museum continues its work and will continue working despite all obstacles.

What are the Ministry of Culture and its administration striving for?
Our organization has no complaints about the Ministry as a governmental body. I
will repeat, that there are some people, who are ruling the Ministry, they want
to destroy us. They want to establish here a State museum. But wait, how is it
possible to establish a new museum destroying the existing one, which has been
successfully working for a long time? Is it really possible to talk about
fulfillment of Svetoslav Roerich’s will, if the Roerichs’ collection, which was
kept in Yuri Roerich’s apartment on the Leninsky avenue in the city center, was
being looted, taken away and sold during more than 10 years? At the same time
government promised to establish a museum. No! How can one talk about love and
establishment of a State museum, while a collection, which belongs to Svetoslav
Roerich, and which is partially looted now, is kept within the State Museum of
Oriental Art?

I would like to claim in front of all the media: we do have the evidence
proving illegal disappearance of paintings from the State Museum of Oriental
Art. Mr. Rybak told me that it was nothing but demagogy. There is no place for
demagogy, as the paintings were brought to the USSR in 1978 and we have all
acts of acceptance, as well as delivery and acceptance acts from all State
museums, where the exhibition took place. Paintings “Snow Maiden,” “Alexander
Nevsky” and “The Tale of Shambhala” were included in this collection.

How can it be said that these paintings are abroad, included in a
private collection, referring to a handwritten note on the act, which had never
been confirmed either by the owner or by his representatives? Moreover, one of
these paintings is exhibited in the State Museum of Oriental Art, while the
State Museum of Oriental Art together with the present Ministry of Culture
claim that these paintings have never been brought to the USSR. I am talking
about painting named “The Tale of Shambhala”. It was given another name,
concealed but it is still exhibited. In 2004 the International Centre of the
Roerichs published several articles on this topic, and articles written by me
were issued in 2009.

We approached the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Investigative
Committee, we presented the data but nobody wants to initiate an inspection.
Everything goes to the junior ranks and results in the following situation,
when an investigator comes to the SMOA and asks whether they have any paintings
missing. Of course the answer is “no”. Thus, the investigator notes that there
is no grounds for a criminal case. However, it is known that there is a
significant difference of 6 paintings between the number of paintings listed in
the will and the number, which exists in reality. They refer to Svetoslav
Roerich’s letter to the President, where he mentioned 286 paintings and not
288. I agree but it is possible that Svetoslav Roerich made a mistake and I
also suggest initiating an open investigation considering this question under
public control. They refuse.

In addition, the last thing I wanted to mention. It is hard to realize
that during these 3-4 years our cultural activity has been disturbed. ICR was
carrying out wonderful international non-governmental activity, which is
significant and necessary for Russia, which consisted in promotion of Nicholas
Roerich’s heritage. During these 2‑3 years ICR organized a vast International
exhibition project entitled “The Roerich Pact. History and Modernity,” which
took place in 17 countries, including an exhibition at the UN General Assembly
in New York. Owing to Vitaly Churkin we realized this significant project. Ban
Ki-moon was very impressed by the exhibition and was eager to arrive in Russia,
when he was invited to the celebrations dedicated to the 75th
Anniversary of the Victory in Great Patriotic War on 9 May.

However, he did not have the opportunity to visit our Museum on 9 May,
as he had a busy schedule. But we still waited for him at the Museum. On 10 May
it was Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO, who visited our Museum. She
was very impressed by our Museum and left a wonderful note in the guest book.
In presence of Valentina Mitrofanova, our representative to Paris at that time,
we arranged with Director General of UNESCO to organize a new cultural project
“Peace through Culture”. However, the Ministry of Culture ruined everything. We
faced economic blockade. Now we know and there is a lot of evidence proving
that those who help us face persecution, complaints, and falsified letters
about them full of lies. But the Museum does work and will continue to carry
out its activity.

Well, the last thing I wanted to mention. If the Ministry of Culture
achieves its aim and the government follows its desire and recognizes that ICR
is illegally holding the heritage, transferred to Russia by Svetoslav Roerich
for our organization in order to establish our non-governmental Museum, there
will be no legal basis for the heritage to be left in Russia. Do you understand
it? The Ministry of Culture does not think about it. All destructions,
including one, which took place yesterday, are not only a blow to the prestige
of the Russian Federation but to its image on the international scale as well.
Now Russia is facing hard times. It is a blow to the community and its active
work in cultural domain.

Our President Vladimir Poutine has mentioned several times and set
objectives to the Ministry of Culture to pay attention to non-governmental
organizations and to help those of them, which preserve and renovate cultural
heritage. “Main Cultural Policy Postulates” were issued. However, the Ministry
of Culture is doing the exact opposite towards our organization. And we cannot
find protection anywhere. You know, we are running out of patience.

We have been sending letters asking for help for more than three years.
The governmental authorities do not pay any attention to it. Our international
organization does not have any other opportunities but to address international
community and to raise some money there in order to pay 52 million rubles of
taxes, despite having spent not less than two milliards rubles to renovate the
Lopoukhins’ estate. It is cynicism, meanness and humiliation. I thank you for
your attention and yield the floor to Anatoly Karpov.

Anatoly E. Karpov – the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the ICR, chess grandmaster,
world chess champion.

Now, I will comment a little and leave, and you will
ask questions. Well, you know, I just wanted to remind you that the whole
legacy passed to Russia under the will of Svetoslav Roerich. In fact, even
during his lifetime he engaged in talks about bringing the legacy back to
Russia, but that time to the Soviet Union. Svetoslav Nikolaevich met with
Gorbachev. At that time Gorbachev was the President of the Soviet Union and,
thus, an agreement was reached on the fact that the legacy would return to the
Soviet Union, which is as it should be.

How did I get into this process? Svetoslav Roerich, by
meeting with Gorbachev, requested a meeting with the management of the Soviet
Peace Fund. And when we first met, he said that he would like it to be a
non-governmental museum, not a state museum, when the legacy would return, and,
he would like to have not only a political country management as a guarantor,
but also one of the largest non-governmental organizations. Then the Soviet
Peace Fund had considerable financial resources. And, thus, an agreement was
reached, which was approved by the Board of the Soviet Peace Fund, and then by
a conference. And all the first actions, including the transfer of legacy, were
carried out at the expense of the Soviet Peace Fund, and then, later, of the
International Association of Peace Funds.

When I met with Svetoslav Roerich, I understood, and
he repeatedly said about this, that he did not transfer the legacy to the
state, but to Russia, but he was sure that the non-governmental organization would
be attentive to the legacy. And, you know in his lifetime he hoped and relied
on social forces.

Of course there were some problems. We did not get
this building at once, we got it in a very bad condition. You can see there, we
have photos and you can see the condition of Lopukhins' estate when we got it,
and in what condition it is now. Here, this is a central part, a museum part,
and this is an administrative building. This is, of course, a glory. A glory,
if we talk about the Roerich's Teachings, the Roerich legacy, our great
compatriot, then there is nothing better in the world, and, by the way, today I
learned with surprise that most of the paintings from New York, and there the
Roerich Museum exists for a long time, most of the paintings have been sold, but
even some part of them have come to us.

But, what happened these days, I think was with some
legal infringements, they certainly were there. They are connected not only
with the order that exists, but with the fact that the law enforcement and
justice bodies of Russia occur more rarely, firstly in work with museums.
Secondly, they behaved here as if the museum was under criminal investigation,
and not some part has come. And, as I understand it, the prosecutor had to sign
the warrant on specific paintings, although, frankly, I do not understand how
the investigation can prove where the stolen money are, which paintings have
been bought with money and transferred to the organization, officially transferred,
and where are not stolen money. How can you divide? We can prove, somewhere, Bulochnik
took out some kind of loan that he did not pay back. But, did he buy pictures using
this loan or maybe he had other personal finances? That is, it will be almost
impossible to prove this to the investigation, I'm not talking that the fact
has happened. This became the property not of Bulochnik, who is under a criminal
procedure now, but this is the property of a non-governmental organization.

While I am here, I have remembered that we had a very
egregious case, back in the Soviet Union, in 1986. Then the investigating
authorities found some philatelic documents which were stolen from the state
archives. And the investigation for want of a better response went to the Philatelical
Society of the Soviet Union, took a list of the most famous collectors of
Moscow, went to a prosecutor of the Kiev district and according to the list of
the philatelical society a prosecutor gave permission for search and seizure in
all Moscow collectors, philatelists. I know this from Rozov, late,
unfortunately, he was a great playwright. I was in that list, but at that
moment I was playing a match with Kasparov in Leningrad and, of course, nobody
could open my apartment, that's why I was out of this operation. There were
major collectors, they were visited, if we can call them that, by the
representatives of the investigative bodies and did seizure, nobody knows what
they seized. Rozov simply had a huge chest with a philatelic collection in the
center of the work-room. They came and asked: “where do you keep stamps?” He
replied – “Here.” That’s all, they took the chest, moreover without any
inventory. Well, how to describe stamps? It’s very difficult. Rozov made a
terrible row, and in the evening they returned stamps to him with apologies.
But, I know collectors whom they did not return and who had losses, and we know
who was responsible for this ingenious operation, then some stamps were sold
from different collections, so we know who had a hand in it.

This
reminds me that story, because they came and did not know what to seize. If you
have evidence that some paintings were bought for illegal means, then there
should be a list of these paintings and as Aleksandr V. Stetsenko said, they should
have been seized. They seized, what they seized, today, it is impossible to
control it. Because, I think that this is violation of rights of both the
museum and the Roerichs Society, there were no representatives, the seizures
occurred in an isolated way. There are no investigation, police, museum
representatives. And we still do not know what will happen. I do not want to
denounce in bad intentions, but the whole procedure is very surprising, that it
was possible to come so easily, broke into the museum, twenty minutes before
the start of work. Just wait for the personnel and execute this operation with
it. Well, in fact, I do not know whether or not there is evidence of this, but only
now, we have looked at the TASS report that 47, 54 boxes from the Roerich
Museum are stored in the Museum of Oriental Art. And, is the Museum of Oriental
Art the Department of Russian Investigation or what? If the paintings have been
taken as evidence, then they should be at the investigation, and not in the
museum. Now, this is quite an astonishing fact. That is, thus, they are
probably trying, at least in part, to take unique works of Roerich to the
museum and conduct further actions to evict the organization from these
premises. The decision to create a state museum, as they called it, the Museum
of the Roerich family, it was made without participation, without the consent
of the Roerich Center and the museum's management. I am also worry the fact
that Roerich's will, the organization created by Roerich in Russia are being
questioned, and, then, the legal foundations for this whole unique collection
are cease to be effective. And unfortunately the Roerichs do not have legatees on
the Russian side, there are legatees in Indian line. And the Roerich family in
India can request, demand: “since you disavowed Roerich's will, then, kindly,
return us everything that is in Russia”. Now, this is what we have today, and I
think that after all, the common sense will take its toll, and someone will
understand what we can finally get. I thank you for your attention, and turn it
over to you.

Alexander Vitalievich raised legal issues, I want to address the ethics
and moral issues which we had to face here. I spoke to the people involved, so
to speak, in these investigative actions and that none of the employees has
been read out their rights – I do want to confirm it. Next I want to talk about
how investigators and the staff of the Ministry of Culture behaved at the
Museum. When searches and seizure of documents were finished in the
administrative part where I was and I was not allowed out, I naturally first
went to the museum because I knew that none of us hadn’t been allowed here. The
first part of the painting seizure had ended and what did I see? Perhaps museum
staff would understand me – my heart was just bleeding. Everyone walked dressed
in street clothes, with bags, suitcases, backpacks and ate in the Museum. At
first, I saw it on the ground floor. I asked the staff who were carrying out
investigation acts not to eat here by the paintings and go out. No one went out
on the ground floor and I was told, literally. “Well, after all we're not going
to the toilet here”. I take full responsibility for these words, unfortunately,
I don’t know the names, there were more than 70 people, none of them introduced
themselves, they were just making demands, running, grabbing hands, taking away
phones. Only those investigators who have conducted searches in the
administrative part introduced themselves to me and I have no complaints of
their behavior. When I went up to the first floor, I saw the same thing –
investigating officers dressed up with bags, rucksacks. But what stunned me
most – employees of the Ministry of culture also walked in jackets, coats, with
backpacks and bags. They were working dressed in these clothes. These are
people who were constantly giving interviews in the media, on television, in
newspapers, saying that they care about conservation of art works, especially
in our museum. To tell the truth, investigating officers who I had asked to go
out and eat on the staircase did so. I have to commend them here.

One more thing that I want to say. The searches were also conducted in
the repository – it is the holy of holies of the Museum. Just 5 or 6 people are
allowed to this storage facility on special orders. Not each employee who works
at the Museum has the right to enter there. And for such a case a special
permit is issued at the request of the custodian. So, this time over 15
investigators came into the repository and only one custodian who asked them to
take off outerwear, cause we have climate control, the air from outside goes
through special cleaners, we always put on shoe covers, we don’t lie, when the
Ministry inspected us, they did all the same. We were inspected in late 2015
for one month with participation of officials from the Ministry of Culture –
Mr. Rybak who was mentioned before and some staff and Mr. Mkrtychev from the
Oriental Museum also participated. They checked everything – all the documents,
all the items. So, 15 people entered the repository of 4 rooms with one
custodian who just could not keep an eye on everything. We have not checked
there yet, there are not only paintings but objects of small forms and other
various items as well. What we found in the morning, when it was over – there
was a roulette from the repository, we just know it cause it’s marked, here on
the piano, it means someone took it out of there, and we were looking for a
mouse of repository computer, we couldn’t find it anywhere and then found here
only by label. They are not art objects, but things have been taken out from
the repository and the keeper could not keep track of it. So, what happened at
the storage area of 4 small rooms – 15 people went in and spread out on the
premises. And she suggested them to open and show everything to keep some kind
of order, but the rest were walking around on their own. That is the kind of
attitude. Representatives of the investigating authorities said that it was the
first time they took part in activities in a museum building, they hadn’t had
to do that before. But there are some moral issues. I'll briefly tell you how
they treated our employees. Chief Keeper was woken up at half past seven in the
morning. I can give her name, she does mind and can confirm everything,
Kupchenko Elena Alekseevna. At half past seven two men came to them, presented
summons and said that they had to go with them cause they hadn’t appear for
interrogation. She said, “I haven’t received anything”. They said, “Sign here,
sign this document that you haven’t come for interrogation.” She said, “I'm not
going to sign, I haven’t got any summons”. “Then get dressed and go with us’
... and they say nothing to where, or why, or how.

Then I called her and asked to clarify where she was being taken – the
address was told –3/5 Maly Znamensky lane. We realized that she was being taken
to the Museum. She was got out of the bed at seven-thirty in the morning and,
without any cup of tea, was literally brought here. She did not eat, did not
drink till 5 am of the next day, and was let to the toilet under supervision,
when she said she needed to go out, she was told to stay. She was brought to
the toilet. Is she guilty, don’t we have a presumption of innocence?

Another example. Old ladies, we call them so, women at the age of 70 or
so who work as museum keepers, they are a few, they came to work and were not
allowed. They were taken to the side wing and sat on the chair and that we saw
when we were allowed to look in? – they were sitting with their handbags
dressed up and eating what they brought with them. They were taken to the
toilet by a representative of the Special Police Force or investigators, who
waited for them and brought them back and they drank water there. Such was the
treatment of our employees. One very fragile woman working at the department of
accounting and archives was just pushed by an investigator. She said, what if I
pushed you, or broke your glasses?

One employee who was brought here when he said to the staff who were
there not to sign anything and wait for our management, they twisted his hands
and when he started shouting, they said shut up, does it hurt that much, and
dragged him to the archives, put him and the security guard face to the wall
and forced to raise their hands, and they were standing like that.

The people who work here, none of us is under investigation. I'm telling
you about that treatment. Another example, perhaps the last one, why we are so
outraged. One woman in charge of the economy somehow went out. We have keepers’
room at the side wing, and she wanted to go to it. She was lightly dressed, and
they closed the door in front of her, she was not allowed in the museum or the
keepers’ rooms, she stayed outside lightly dressed till 4 am. She is here if
you want to see her. And we need to pay tribute to the security guard in the
booth (it is our guard), who let her in there to get warm. It was only at 4
o'clock in the morning when she was allowed to come in here and take her
jacket. This is what we have experienced here during these investigative actions.
The investigators told me that they had never faced such resistance to the
authorities as they were having here. But if I do not want to sign anything, if
I ask to wait for a lawyer and the manager, I have that right. As they say, you
have the right to remain silent and call a lawyer. And I call a lawyer using
speakerphone and the lawyer says, “I'll be right there”, and my head says on
the speakerphone that he will be now, that he is late. They don’t pay attention
to all this. I was cut off from the Museum, they wouldn’t let me go out, I tell
them, “I am responsible for the Museum, I am responsible for the painting,
these are my job duties, first of all. In the evening they called me here, it
was one or two am, I was called here, cause they didn’t know how to turn on the
lights in the halls. They brought me here, OMON let me in, then they told me to
get out of here, they can do now without your help. I tell them, I'm not a
girl, can’t I stay here? – We are gonna take you out of here with OMON. And they
took me away under my hands, and said that I was interfering with the
investigation. I asked in which way? I can help the investigation, to tell how
to turn on, turn off, where which paintings are. – You are interfering with the
investigation, leave. – Why, I'm responsible for it ... I'm not doing anything.
They called OMON. A poor police officer standing doesn’t know what to do with
me – I'll have to take your arm and out of here. I was taken out.

And they make claims for disobedience to the investigating authorities.

Everyone says that it is so critical to conserve works of art, and we do
not conserve them. What have they done to some our works of art that were taken
from the repository and here from the halls, we probably can not say that.
Restorers say that they can not be rolled, otherwise their colorful cover of
paint and varnish will be damaged greatly. This didn’t ask us about this. We
were not allowed in, no one was interested, they have rolled and carried them
away. Those works of art it may be restored at best. That is about the respect
for the works of art and how those who want us to take them from us care. I am
full of emotions here.

A question from the audience – how many paintings did your sponsor Bulochnik
donate you and if talking about money, then what is their value?

You know, we did not count the cost, to be honest. Just imagine, the
portrait of Nicholas Roerich in full growth, which they took, cost $ 3 million
at an auction. Paintings do not have a constant value. Depending on the demand
pattern, their value changes. This is one painting. How many paintings were
taken according to Tatiana Alexandrovna – you have heard, so it’s hard to talk
of the value, we need to count as of the current period. We can, if you are
interested in approximately ...

We know the approximate number of paintings that Boris Ilyich donated to
our Museum since 2005, all documents are available, about 30 paintings. But
there were donations before 2005 as well.

I want to clarify it, you know, what the situation now is very
interesting. We have been inspected by the tax authorities and part of the
original contracts have been seized, but they confirmed it all, left copies of
contracts on donation of Boris Ilyich, but this time not only the originals of
the contract were seized, but the copies as well. We are basically left without
any documents on the paintings, you see? And then our personnel started asking
to let them make copies. They were allowed to make some but then were told it
was going to take a very long time, there was no time to wait, so come to us to
the investigating authorities, claim what you need and make copies. Thus, the
Museum is actually left without documents.

Speech 4 – Channel
360, a question – is the announced intention to sell the paintings serious and
what is the future of the paintings?

We can not know the future of the paintings, anything can happen to
them. What we do know now, is that they were taken to the to the vaults of the
Museum of Oriental Artt. They are under investigation, they act as material
evidence. Where will these pictures stay? we assume that in the Oriental
Museum, but we can be disapproved, the investigations are still being
conducted. We assume that these pictures will remain in the Museum of Oriental
Art, and for this they have been seized, this museum representative walked
around here, looked and pointed out which picture to take, for that purpose he
looked through the original documents seized from the accounting department and
copies of these documents. Here at this table the representative of the
Oriental Museum was sitting, watching and saying – we need this, we don’t need
that, we are interested in it, it does not interest us. This is what I could
see, and then they took me out. The paintings seized were not those stated by
the investigating authorities representatives, but those pointed out by
employees of the Museum of Oriental Art. How can we understand it? Do the staff
of the Museum of Oriental Art know about the investigation procedures? Were
they let to know of the criminal case? Do they know all the details? I don’t
think so. All the more, the second seizure .. if when the first seizure was –
they showed me the list, there were 11 or 13 pictures. I was shown the list, I
remember the number and some of the paintings. There was a list of paintings to
be seized, but they were only 11-13 paintings, no more. The rest were seized, I
don’t know how to call it .. at the behest of volition of employees of the
Ministry of Culture and the Museum of Oriental Art.

Pavel M. Zhuravikhin – First Deputy Director General of the Museum named after Nicholas
Roerich.

I will try to be brief. On continuation of the speech by Natalia
N.Cherkashina I wish first of all to say that Museum named after Nicholas
Roerich is the unique serious museum in Russia with the biggest team of
specialists on study, research and popularization of the Roerichs’ heritage.
The experts here are exceptional and outstanding. These experts are the rarity
and have 15-20 years of work service. Neither Museum of Oriental Art, nor
Roerich Museum in New York or any other museums have such high-level
specialists. We have the largest Roerichs’ archive and we publish more than 200
editions. We have the biggest collection of art pieces, Roerichs’ paintings,
which we have been compiling for over 25 years. It is not only the heritage
transferred by Svetoslav Roerich but also by the donators from the whole world.
They thought that their art works would be in safety and transferred them to
the museum for perpetual storage, returned hundreds of paintings, including Boris
Bulochnik, from global auctions, all of them were returned to Russia. And it is
unfair when we see such an attitude towards the unique world-class experts of
who we can justifiably take pride, as it is impossible to simply educate these
experts, we can do this only during direct engagement with the art pieces and
it needs constant years of work to educate these experts. They were literally
stepped on, as Natalia Cherkashina said how our experts were seating on chairs
in the passage of the hallway like the homeless people and everyone who wanted
was passing by them. That is the way they treated with our workers. Natalia
Cherkashina and I were the first who met these 60-70 people, some of them
immediately came to us and began yelling: “Quickly put all the documents on the
table!” We answered: “We are sorry but our head will soon arrive and then we
will open all the doors and give you everything you want”. We saw that those
people went along the museum with a huge cutter. I told the investigator: “I am
sorry but why do you want to hack the museum? We have 10 minutes”. In his
presence I phoned Alexander Stetsenko, our head. The investigator answered:
“Well, we will wait”. At that moment the doors of the museum have been cut.
Shortly afterwards I asked “Do you anyway understand what you are doing?”
Russia and may be the whole international practice didn’t see how the museum is
being forced beating out the doors. It is nonsense. It is a shame for Russia
and will be a stigma on the Russian culture. That is how the Ministry of
Culture relates to its cultural heritage. The artist Roerich is a world figure,
a great Russian painter. At that moment they understood what they had done.
They said: “Yes, guys, we hurried up”. As you see, the guys hurried up. To tell
nothing about that I was also blocked but I had to be some time here at the
museum. When I came, the half of paintings was packed. What happened? Alexander
Stetsenko arrived, we were outside and I saw that packaging materials were
brought to the museum. I asked the guard form Special Police Force (OMON):
“What is this?” – “They are packing the paintings” I said: “How is it possible?
There is no museum worker in the halls. Who is packing? Unknown people remove
paintings and pack them” – “All right. Everything is fine. They are
specialists”. And when I managed to come there over an hour I said: “What are
you doing here without our workers?” Suddenly they understood. “Well, come here
and sit down”. I came here, half of paintings were packed. I said: “How will we
sign up in the protocols if we do not see these paintings?” “We will not unpack
them so you must sign “as is”. Of course I did not sign anything. They made our
guard underwrite there when I was taken away. It was a chaos, horrible
situation, some kind of surrealism. Then I told the investigator: “Fine. You
think these paintings were purchased on stolen money. You are removing these
paintings now. What next? You want to return money to the depositors. What will
you do?” The investigator answered: “We will auction them”. I said: “Are you
crazy? They were returned here from the whole world, it is a private
collection, and millions of dollars were spent including Boris Bulochnik who
attracted funds to return them to Russia” “We do not think about it. The
depositors will suffer”. As you know, last year we opened the exhibition “The
Roerich Pact. History and Modernity” in Washington. I was in Washington.
Despite sanctions the American citizens accepted us, they understood that
culture is the soft diplomatic force, culture is the force that can open up the
obstacles. State officials cannot enter the country but our non-governmental
peacekeeping organization saying about the Roerichs’ heritage, his peacekeeping
activity on preservation of heritage and cultural treasure of the humanity was
allowed to enter. We were in the National Gallery in Washington. There one can
see paintings which the Soviet Union sold from Hermitage in 1929-1934. These
paintings are famous – Rafael, Rubens, Titian. Now we measure it was done to
get the money and feed people. They did not feed the people but left a mark in
history. Now we see it as a nationwide crime. The same things happen now. I saw
the nameplates on the paintings in Washington National Gallery: “Donated by the
foundation”, “donated by the patron”. By the way, American patrons bought out
these paintings and presented to people. Each businessman is honored to donate
the painting to the museum for the people. Some of these patrons were ruined,
but no one came to mind to take off and sell the paintings. This year marks the
100th anniversary of the Russian revolution, what are we doing? The
representative of Ministry of Culture was here all the time. They cowardly told
the mass media: “Ministry of Culture is not relevant to it”. It is a lie that
“Ministry of Culture is not relevant to it”. Museum of Oriental Art declared:
“We have nothing to do with the incident”. It is also a total lie. They saw
what happened with the unique work team and did not do anything to help. They
kept silence and only said: “Here, here, here”. They only clicked the lists
searching what to take away. Certainly it is the highest degree of immorality.
This suggests that culture is being destroyed and destroyed by people who are
not relevant to culture. Mr. Aristarkhov for 7 or 8 years has been working in
construction business, the man who pushes around us as it was said earlier. But
now this man who does not have any special education is responsible for
preservation of cultural heritage of Russia. The way how he is responsible is
clear– as you see, there are only cables of paintings on the walls. I will take
a few minutes more. Yesterday we opened the museum for the first time for
everyone who wants to come and see what happened here. We took interviews. We
were curious about the reaction of people. It seems to me that it will be
interesting to hear. Turn on the screen. Please.

You know, it is the second message for the short period of time. What
you said was really discovered. They were found in the museum as they suddenly
resurfaced and were not discovered here. Actually they were in
exposition and suddenly detected such an interest to Roerich. Before that it
was said that about 10 previously unknown paintings were found in Croatia. But
what surprised me – that Russian diplomats are negotiating on the return to
native land. And here you see that it is referred to sale. Nicholas Roerich
held exhibitions and he really did them before the World War I and donated
paintings to collections, including the Museum of Russian Art in Prague,
Croatia. There are indications for temporary storage but no accurate estimate
is known. I do not have any accurate results. He donated several paintings to
Paris, it is a well-known practice, and to the Pope. No one was engaged in it.
Russia did not need Roerich. That is all. But now it is a sensation for them.

One more example. You asked where we take the money now. The principled
position of the Roerichs and Nicholas Roerich was that culture must remain in
the public domain and under public control. Roerich personally organized a
number of cultural institutions, the public institutions. Svetoslav Roerich
maintained the position of his father so he created this museum on a voluntary
basis. Now we exist only due to our own earned money, the museum is working,
thanks to donations of a great number of people, because thousands of people
and volunteers took part in establishment of this museum. Thousands of people
from the area of the former Soviet Union really donated money. Now we live the
same way. Thanks to donations and aid of volunteers.

Ilya Shablinsky – a member of a Council under
the President of the Russian Federation on the human rights and the civil
society development.

I suppose that the Council would like to develop a clear position on
this problem. For now, I believe, it is only being formulated. Our chairman
Mikhail Aleksandrovich Fedotov talked to Alekseyeva about this. I have two
questions to clarify. First, some words on my understanding of this problem
now. Just a few words, very preliminary assessment. The fact is, as I
understand, that the International Centre of the Roerichs is the biggest
non-governmental Museum, in Russia there is no bigger one. There are quite many
small museums, we described their activity, they are scattered all over Russia –
a museum of mouse, a museum of vodka, very small, almost tiny museums and they
do not have any troubles. And to such phenomenon as a non-governmental Museum
our cultural environment is still not accustomed. As for the question by a journalist
of the "Komsomolskaya Pravda" – "whom the Museum funds belong,
whom the Centre belongs". Colleagues, The Tretyakov gallery was a private
museum, and almost all biggest museums in Europe were initially private,
non-governmental museums. We have a determined position on what Mr. Stetsenko
said. We need social activity in this sphere and for now this activity is
minimal. I.e. the tradition was interrupted in 1917, and there were no
non-governmental museums until the end of 1990-ies. Further, the legal side of
the issue. I still do not know all the details and would like to avoid
categorical statements, but usually in a constitutional state a property of a
patron of art, a property of a particular individual or a legal entity and a
property of an organization that was the object of charity, are separated.
These are two different subjects. Constitutional state separates them and this
is a well-known old problem, but it is like this only if we speak about a
constitutional state. But such difference exists, and, I assure you, is known
for a very long time. I would pay attention to Anatoly Evgen'evich Karpov's
words, he described the situation very well. Svyatoslav Roerich saw his Museum
as a non-governmental organization. I have read a lot about it, as Lyudmila
Mikhajlovna asked me to. He knew that the state treated his heritage coldly for
quite a long time, did not want to acknowledge Roerich. The Russian state, the
Soviet state did not want to know him. And he knew that the state can change
its tastes, preferences. How many ministers, so many are the points of view.
This position of Svyatoslav Roerich is not occasional and it is good that
Anatoly Evgen'evich pointed attention to it. The Roerichs heritage consists of
not only more than thousand pieces of art and paintings, it is a certain blend
of philosophical traditions, to which people may have different attitude, that
is what we are facing. Within some of them it causes irritation. In this I see
the reason of such behavior towards the Museum. But I emphasize once again,
that our Council is a non-governmental organization too, though under the
President. We will try to formulate our concern and, of course, would like to
help this situation. From a common humanitarian point of view this is a very
strange union – The Ministry of culture and OMON, but we have already met this,
so it is familiar. And I wanted to clarify two things. It was said, and I need
to know precisely, is it true that not only the originals, but also the copies
of the deed on the works of art were taken away from you?

Alexander V. Stetsenko. Absolutely right, we are left now without any documents that confirm
the legitimacy of location of the collection in our Museum. That's what they
made.

Ilya Shablinsky. And you can visit the
investigation agency and take back once again these copies? Probably, you will
have to do this. And last question. I could understand something about the
activity of Aristarkhov and Rybak, but did the minister Medinsky ever express his
attitude to this situation, do you know his position?